• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

Yep...the US definitely finances medical treatment for individuals around the world. The fact that sensible governments have made free medical care and affordable drugs a priority in their budget allocations to actually benefit their citizens have nothing to do with it. Maybe if the US government also deprioritized propping up share values of private medical services and pharma companies to benefit billionaire shareholders, Americans too wouldn't have to chose between bankruptcy and medical treatment.
 

musk on rogan saying most of what doge has found is not fraud and corruption, but waste and policy disagreements and then kind of loses his train of thought
 
LiteBright said:
The first and last paragraphs might be the most offensively ignorant thing you've ever posted on this forum. Anyone with even a fleeting understanding of the last 85 years of world history can see how ridiculous this is.
Click to expand...
Being anti-disease didn’t used to be political and there certainly isn’t a reasoned centrist position between being anti-disease and pro-disease.

It’s wild to see someone come out that hard against medical research to fight disease and then get indignant when they’re not seen as anything other than a foaming-at-the-the-mouth right winger.
 
johnny karate said:
Being anti-disease didn’t used to be political and there certainly isn’t a reasoned centrist position between being anti-disease and pro-disease.

It’s wild to see someone come out that hard against medical research to fight disease and then get indignant when they’re not seen as anything other than a foaming-at-the-the-mouth right winger.
Click to expand...

I remember sitting in the breakfast room of a hotel in Oklahoma several years ago while there was an ebola outbreak in Liberia. On came a commercial for a republican politician where he accused his opponent of being "pro-ebola". I laughed so hard I nearly choked.
 
plague311 said:
I'll just cut you off here. I don't care about the rest of your nonsense because you are wrong with this statement. That's not what I think at all. I can just see what you post in all of the threads. It's a long winded support of Trump and then some stupid small print at the end that says "...bUT i dON't LiKe hIM". Save it.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. None of it is support for Trump, it's me doing my damndest to combat propagandistic mischaracterizations and mind-reading.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You're wrong. None of it is support for Trump, it's me doing my damndest to combat propagandistic mischaracterizations and mind-reading.
Click to expand...
to what end?
do you think that through careful analysis you will prove that, all things considered, Trump is not better or even worse than every other President so far, including Trump 1.0 ?
Or can we agree that what he has done so far is enough to make him the worst of the worst ?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
to what end?
do you think that through careful analysis you will prove that, all things considered, Trump is not better or even worse than every other President so far, including Trump 1.0 ?
Or can we agree that what he has done so far is enough to make him the worst of the worst ?
Click to expand...
To what end? The end of bringing back factual and intelligent discourse.

Look, if you can't successfully oppose Trump on the basis of things they have ACTUALLY done, and have ACTUALLY said, without having to resort to hyperbolic rhetoric and narratives based on what might happen in the future because of what your ESP says Trump actually means instead of what they actually say... then you have no leg to stand on. Make the arguments based on reality not fear-mongering.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You're wrong. None of it is support for Trump, it's me doing my damndest to combat propagandistic mischaracterizations and mind-reading.
Click to expand...

You can polish it up all you want. It makes no difference to me. It's like your claim "I don't know my enemy" or whatever the ◊◊◊◊ that nonsense was.

I live in North Dakota. Most my friends and some of my family are massive Trump supporters. A lot of people I work along side and with are Canadians. I'm literally a couple dozen miles from the US\Canada border. We just got a memo saying to expect a significant drop in local taxes because Canadians just aren't coming here to shop now. The drop off has been noticeable and that has a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ MASSIVE affect on my community.

Trust me, I ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ know damn well more than you who my enemy is and what the effects are to me and those important to me. You can make ◊◊◊◊ up, you can bitch about mind reading while hypocritically telling me what I do and do not know, but I seriously value none of it. You support nothing you say, ever. I don't know why you bother. You're as guilty, if not more, for any propagandistic mischaracterizations than anyone. I mean that in the fullest extent I possibly can.
 
Emily's Cat said:
To what end? The end of bringing back factual and intelligent discourse.

Look, if you can't successfully oppose Trump on the basis of things they have ACTUALLY done, and have ACTUALLY said, without having to resort to hyperbolic rhetoric and narratives based on what might happen in the future because of what your ESP says Trump actually means instead of what they actually say... then you have no leg to stand on. Make the arguments based on reality not fear-mongering.
Click to expand...
We tried to oppose Trump on the basis of him having stolen Top Secret nuclear information, and showed them to people at Mar-a-Lago and had people hide them from the FBI and National Archive - and the result is that his FBI returned the documents to him that had been taken in the search warrant, undoubtedly to be put back into the bathroom they were in before.

So trying to litigate minor details about all his criminal activities looks very much like an attempt to sap the bandwidth of the investigators and audience.
When/If he is back on trial we can apply the standards you require, but until then all we have to do is lie an order of magnitude less than Trump does all the time.
 
This might have been mentioned before, but CBS News reported that, "[Paul] Martin, who policed billions in foreign aid spending, issued a report saying emergency aid stopped moving during the chaos of the mass firings at USAID. His report warned that half a billion dollars in food aid might spoil or be stolen. Martin was fired the next day."
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Meh. Some clinical trials make sense to support, some probably don't. It's also worth noting that the US subsidizing foreign clinical trials is one of the several ways in which the US subsidizes the health care costs of the rest of the world - this leads to other countries having lower costs for health care, then turning around and criticizing the US for having higher health care costs than them. So... yeah, how about we stop letting the rest of the world have lower costs so we can get our own house in order?

With respect to some of the clinical trials called out...


  • We already have a fantastically effective device to prevent HIV and pregnancy - it's called a condom
  • , and they're cheap and widely available.
  • We already have a long-acting HIV prevention drug, it's called PREP,
  • and it's been added to the list of drugs that insurers are required to provide at little to no cost.
  • We already have treatments for malaria in children
  • [*]We already have a few malaria vaccines, which are widely available in the parts of the world where malaria is prevalent [*]
  • [*]We already have treatments for cholera, predominantly staying well hydrated which has a 99% recovery rate; clean water is the most effective preventive for cholera [*]
  • [*]We already have screening and treatment procedures for cervical cancer, we even have a vaccine that can prevent the most common types of cervical cancer [*]
  • We already have multiple different treatments for tuberculosis
So about the only thing in there that we don't already have something for is an HIV vaccine... but given that we have 1) treatments that will keep it untransmittable, preventive drugs that will keep a person from acquiring it, and extremely effective devices that prevent transmission (condoms), it really seems like that's covered well enough. Realistically if people would just stop having unprotected sex and using dirty needles, it would pretty much go away all by itself.

So take a step back and think about this - the US is funding research that doesn't solve a problem the US has, or a problem that directly affects the US... but which does allow pharmaceutical and device companies to make a whole lot of money without having to do their own investments.
It's wasteful, and it doesn't further the interests of the US - which is what USAID is supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...

I really think that some of these examples here are more complicated than you are suggesting. For example, sure, condoms are useful, but they are also stigmatized in some parts of the world where HIV and AIDS is rife.

Malaria vaccines are pretty new and there are bound to be ongoing trials of them as they are rolled out. It seems it would be a huge benefit to the world to fund these programs.

Cholera might be easy to prevent with clean running water and also treated with the same, but that is not always possible.

Vaccines for HPV are also extremely worthwhile and should continue to be used.

But in each case, it is not as though medication, vaccines and other treatments cannot be improved and continue to be studied.

To the extent that these programs are used around the world, I would think they massively improve the image of the United States which is indeed part of what USAID is supposed to do.
 
angrysoba said:
I really think that some of these examples here are more complicated than you are suggesting. For example, sure, condoms are useful, but they are also stigmatized in some parts of the world where HIV and AIDS is rife.

Malaria vaccines are pretty new and there are bound to be ongoing trials of them as they are rolled out. It seems it would be a huge benefit to the world to fund these programs.

Cholera might be easy to prevent with clean running water and also treated with the same, but that is not always possible.

Vaccines for HPV are also extremely worthwhile and should continue to be used.

But in each case, it is not as though medication, vaccines and other treatments cannot be improved and continue to be studied.

To the extent that these programs are used around the world, I would think they massively improve the image of the United States which is indeed part of what USAID is supposed to do.
Click to expand...
There's a balance point in here, and some competing pressures. I'm breaking this into two sections.

First: Let's talk about practical and reasonable approaches.

Condoms, for example, are the best measure to prevent HIV as well as all other STDs. I get that in some parts of the world they're stigmatized... but I think it's far more practical to challenge and address the stigma than to try to figure out some other device to prevent transmission that will be better accepted by third world countries. At the end of the day, we already have an extremely effective device that is cheap and easily available - if it's stigmatized somewhere else in the world, well, then that somewhere else needs to fund their own non-condom solution. It's wasteful to invest in research for something that already exists when that second-tier solution doesn't benefit the US and our citizens.

The same applies for cholera. I'm all for reducing cholera outbreaks, but a vaccine or medical treatment is a sub-optimal and costly semi-solution when clean water will address the risk while also providing *substantially* higher benefits than just cholera treatment. I'd far rather invest much more in clean water than in a cholera treatment - lack of clean water contributes to many other illnesses and infections, so it's a far more cost effective and socially conscious approach than medicine for cholera.

Second: Let's talk about value and benefit.

In several of the cases I mentioned, pharmaceutical companies make out like bandits. A new device to prevent HIV, even though condoms are readily available and extremely effective? Sure, something can probably be developed... but the reality is that this ends up being taxpayer-funded profiteering for whichever company patents something first, and I would bet that whatever gets patented *only* works for HIV, so of course those companies will need to come up with something new and expensive for each of the other STDs out there! Treatment for cholera? Absolutely - it's a great chance for a pharma co. to patent and make bank off of their new drug, and hey - it also lets them develop treatments for e-coli, typhoid, diphtheria, and a host of other water-borne illnesses that are easily avoided by providing clean water. Even more vaccines for cervical cancer? That's even more opportunity for borderline-predatory pharma co.s to ramp up their shareholder value and dividends. All while skimming taxpayer money to get there.

There are a whole lot of things that are absolutely worth investing in throughout the globe. And I'm all for that - with the very simple expectation that those investments have a positive ROI for us citizens who are funding it. On the other hand, I'm pretty opposed to using taxpayer money in order to further enrich profiteering megacorp - and I think that's an entirely reasonable opposition.
 
angrysoba said:
I really think that some of these examples here are more complicated than you are suggesting. For example, sure, condoms are useful, but they are also stigmatized in some parts of the world where HIV and AIDS is rife.

Malaria vaccines are pretty new and there are bound to be ongoing trials of them as they are rolled out. It seems it would be a huge benefit to the world to fund these programs.

Cholera might be easy to prevent with clean running water and also treated with the same, but that is not always possible.

Vaccines for HPV are also extremely worthwhile and should continue to be used.

But in each case, it is not as though medication, vaccines and other treatments cannot be improved and continue to be studied.

To the extent that these programs are used around the world, I would think they massively improve the image of the United States which is indeed part of what USAID is supposed to do.
Click to expand...

In addition, some of the programmes, such as monitoring for ebola, directly benefit the citizens of the USA (as well as other countries) by detecting outbreaks early enough to deal with them before they spread world-wide.
 
Emily's Cat said:
There's a balance point in here, and some competing pressures. I'm breaking this into two sections.

First: Let's talk about practical and reasonable approaches.

Condoms, for example, are the best measure to prevent HIV as well as all other STDs. I get that in some parts of the world they're stigmatized... but I think it's far more practical to challenge and address the stigma than to try to figure out some other device to prevent transmission that will be better accepted by third world countries. At the end of the day, we already have an extremely effective device that is cheap and easily available - if it's stigmatized somewhere else in the world, well, then that somewhere else needs to fund their own non-condom solution. It's wasteful to invest in research for something that already exists when that second-tier solution doesn't benefit the US and our citizens.
Click to expand...
I disagree that it is more practical to make widespread cultural, social and religious changes to countries, particularly when the people likely to suffer from non-use of condoms (women), are often not the ones who choose not to use them (men). The AP article says, "HIV remains the leading cause of death among women of reproductive age in Africa and 60% of new infections are in women, according to figures from WHO."

I would say that faced with interventions that are likely to work, or at least have a greater chance of saving lives, then it makes sense to implement them.

In fact, much of the study is indeed an attempt to roll out PrEP, which you talked about before, the difference is that this is inserted in the vagina instead of being used as a pill, which their husbands would not allow them to do.

"Diantha Pillay, associate director for product access for the Council’s South African affiliate office, stated, “Because of economic disparities and uneven power dynamics within sexual partnerships, women and girls are often unable to negotiate safer sex or even choose when or with whom they have sex. These factors also drive gender-based violence, which further increases women’s risk of HIV infection. Therefore, there is a need for comprehensive prevention strategies that include options that women control.”"


Emily's Cat said:
The same applies for cholera. I'm all for reducing cholera outbreaks, but a vaccine or medical treatment is a sub-optimal and costly semi-solution when clean water will address the risk while also providing *substantially* higher benefits than just cholera treatment. I'd far rather invest much more in clean water than in a cholera treatment - lack of clean water contributes to many other illnesses and infections, so it's a far more cost effective and socially conscious approach than medicine for cholera.
Click to expand...
Indeed, according to this USAID press release, the work involves a collaboration between Johns Hopkins University and the famous Cholera Hospital in Bangladesh:

"Diarrhea causes 1.3 million deaths per year, in part due to lack of proper handwashing with soap and water treatment. Johns Hopkins University developed an intervention that has been proven to reduce diarrhea prevalence among a particularly high-risk group: the households of people who were hospitalized with diarrhea in urban areas of Bangladesh. Known as the Cholera Hospital-Based Intervention for 7 days (CHoBI7) mHealth program, health workers provide information, chlorine tablets, a bottle of soapy water, a handwashing station, a safe water vessel, and weekly voice and text messages to reinforce proper hygiene and water treatment behaviors. The program currently costs just $2 per diarrhea episode averted, and is expected to result in future savings as fewer patients will need hospital-based care."

Emily's Cat said:
Second: Let's talk about value and benefit.

In several of the cases I mentioned, pharmaceutical companies make out like bandits. A new device to prevent HIV, even though condoms are readily available and extremely effective? Sure, something can probably be developed... but
the reality is that this ends up being taxpayer-funded profiteering for whichever company patents something first, and I would bet that whatever gets patented *only* works for HIV, so of course those companies will need to come up with something new and expensive for each of the other STDs out there! Treatment for cholera? Absolutely - it's a great chance for a pharma co. to patent and make bank off of their new drug, and hey - it also lets them develop treatments for e-coli, typhoid, diphtheria, and a host of other water-borne illnesses that are easily avoided by providing clean water. Even more vaccines for cervical cancer? That's even more opportunity for borderline-predatory pharma co.s to ramp up their shareholder value and dividends. All while skimming taxpayer money to get there.

There are a whole lot of things that are absolutely worth investing in throughout the globe. And I'm all for that - with the very simple expectation that those investments have a positive ROI for us citizens who are funding it. On the other hand, I'm pretty opposed to using taxpayer money in order to further enrich profiteering megacorp - and I think that's an entirely reasonable opposition.
Click to expand...
Again, seems like they are getting a lot of bang for their buck. To me it sounds like cynicism to argue, as you do, that this is just for Big Pharma to loot tax-payers as the expression "make off like bandits" suggests.
 
The acting director of USAID instructed staff to shred or burn documents: "“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” the email said. Carr instructed staff to label the burn bags with the words “SECRET” and “USAID/B/IO/” (agency shorthand for “bureau or independent office”) in dark Sharpie."

The AP reported, "Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the Trump administration of not complying with federal records law. “Haphazardly shredding and burning USAID documents and personnel files seems like a great way to get rid of evidence of wrongdoing when you’re illegally dismantling the agency,” Meeks said in a statement. A group representing USAID workers, the American Foreign Service Association, said in a statement that it feared documents being destroyed could be relevant to the ongoing lawsuits over USAID’s firings and program terminations."

Why don't they raze the building and sow salt on the ground?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom